gao-06-944 child welfare: federal action needed to ensure ... · develop and submit child welfare...

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Report to the Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Human Resources, Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives

CHILD WELFARE

Federal Action Needed to Ensure States Have Plans to Safeguard Children in the Child Welfare System Displaced by Disasters

July 2006

GAO-06-944

Contents

Letter 1

Conclusions 3Matter for Congressional Consideration 3 Recommendations for Executive Action 3 Comments from the Administration for Children and Families and

Our Evaluation 3

Appendix I Child Welfare Disaster Planning Presentation 5

Appendix II Components of State Disaster Plans 34

Appendix III States Experiencing Disasters in 2005 35

Appendix IV Comments from the Department of Health and

Human Services 37

Appendix V GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 40

Appendix VI Related GAO Products 41

Tables

Table 1: States Reporting Having Disaster Plans 35 Table 2: States Not Reporting Having Disaster Plans 35

Page i GAO-06-944 Child Welfare

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.

Page ii GAO-06-944 Child Welfare

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

July 28, 2006 July 28, 2006

The Honorable Jim McDermott Ranking Minority Member Subcommittee on Human Resources Committee on Ways and Means House of Representatives

The Honorable Jim McDermott Ranking Minority Member Subcommittee on Human Resources Committee on Ways and Means House of Representatives

According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, there were 48 federally declared disasters in 2005. Two of these disasters—Hurricanes Katrina and Rita—resulted in a prolonged interruption of child welfare services and the dispersion of thousands of children in Louisiana’s foster care system to 19 states. As a result, there has been growing interest in the extent to which states have developed strategies to cope with disasters that could result in the dispersion of children in the child welfare system.

According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, there were 48 federally declared disasters in 2005. Two of these disasters—Hurricanes Katrina and Rita—resulted in a prolonged interruption of child welfare services and the dispersion of thousands of children in Louisiana’s foster care system to 19 states. As a result, there has been growing interest in the extent to which states have developed strategies to cope with disasters that could result in the dispersion of children in the child welfare system.

You asked us to conduct a study of the challenges facing state child welfare systems, including the development of plans for dealing with the dispersion of children in the child welfare system due to disasters. This report addresses state child welfare disaster planning. Specifically, we are providing information on (1) the number of states that have statewide child welfare disaster plans and the primary components of those plans, (2) the extent to which states that experienced federally declared disasters in 2005 also had child welfare disaster plans, and (3) how the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) supports states’ efforts to develop child welfare disaster plans.

You asked us to conduct a study of the challenges facing state child welfare systems, including the development of plans for dealing with the dispersion of children in the child welfare system due to disasters. This report addresses state child welfare disaster planning. Specifically, we are providing information on (1) the number of states that have statewide child welfare disaster plans and the primary components of those plans, (2) the extent to which states that experienced federally declared disasters in 2005 also had child welfare disaster plans, and (3) how the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) supports states’ efforts to develop child welfare disaster plans.

We used multiple data collection methods, as part of the broader study, to obtain this information. First, we surveyed state child welfare directors in 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico to obtain information on the strategies that they developed to cope with disasters that could result in the dispersion of children. Second, we interviewed child welfare officials in five states: California, New York, North Carolina, Texas, and Utah. These states were selected for variance in program administration (state administered, state-supervised/county-administered, state and county administered), the predominance of urban or rural characteristics, the achievement of child welfare standards on HHS’s Child and Family Services Review, changes in the number of children reported to be in foster care; and geographic location. In addition, we interviewed federal child welfare officials and representatives from national child welfare organizations concerning the strategies that states had developed. Finally,

We used multiple data collection methods, as part of the broader study, to obtain this information. First, we surveyed state child welfare directors in 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico to obtain information on the strategies that they developed to cope with disasters that could result in the dispersion of children. Second, we interviewed child welfare officials in five states: California, New York, North Carolina, Texas, and Utah. These states were selected for variance in program administration (state administered, state-supervised/county-administered, state and county administered), the predominance of urban or rural characteristics, the achievement of child welfare standards on HHS’s Child and Family Services Review, changes in the number of children reported to be in foster care; and geographic location. In addition, we interviewed federal child welfare officials and representatives from national child welfare organizations concerning the strategies that states had developed. Finally,

Page 1 GAO-06-944 Child Welfare fare

we analyzed agency documentation, legislation, and other material related to child welfare programs and requirements. We conducted our work between October 2005 and June 2006 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

On June 26, 2006, we briefed your staff on the results of our study of state child welfare disaster planning. This report formally conveys the information provided during that briefing. In summary, we found that

• Twenty states and the District of Columbia reported that they had a written child welfare disaster plan. However, the plans varied in the extent to which they included selected child welfare program components, such as identifying children under state care who may be dispersed. Specifically:

• nineteen state plans addressed preserving child welfare records, • thirteen state plans addressed identifying children who may be

dispersed, • eleven state plans addressed identifying new child welfare cases

and providing services, • ten state plans addressed coordinating services and sharing

information with other states, and • six state plans addressed placing children from other states.

• Of the 29 states and Puerto Rico that experienced a federally declared

disaster in 2005, 8 reported having a written child welfare disaster plan. • While HHS does not have the authority to require states to develop

child welfare disaster plans, it has assisted states in developing child welfare disaster plans by issuing guidance in 1995 and funding technical assistance on disaster planning through its network of national resource centers. The guidance generally does not address the potential dispersion of children and families in a disaster. In addition, child welfare officials reported that additional disaster planning assistance from the federal government would be helpful, including information or training on how to develop a disaster plan and what to include.

HHS is planning several actions with regard to child welfare disaster planning. First, the department plans to hold a child welfare disaster planning conference for states in August 2006. Second, HHS is updating its 1995 disaster planning guidance for release at the conference. Finally, the department has asked states to voluntarily submit copies of their disaster plans for review by December 2006. However, it is unclear how much

Page 2 GAO-06-944 Child Welfare

these efforts will address the potential dispersion of children and families in a disaster.

In the absence of federal requirements that states develop child welfare disaster plans, many states have not done so. In addition, states that have developed disaster plans do not always address the dispersion of children and families. The lack of plans for dealing with the dispersion of children may result in confusion at a time when families are under strain and need services most. Without minimum requirements on what states should include in their child welfare disaster plans, some states may be unable to ensure the continuity of services within and across state lines for the children under their care.

To ensure continuity of services within or across state lines for the children under state care, Congress should consider requiring that states develop and submit child welfare disaster plans for HHS review.

To better assist states in developing child welfare disaster plans, we are recommending that the Secretary of Health and Human Services ensure that the department’s child welfare disaster planning guidance address the dispersion of children and families within and across state lines. This guidance should include information on

• preserving child welfare records, • identifying children who may be dispersed, • identifying new child welfare cases and providing services, • coordinating services and sharing information with other states, and • placing children from other states. Finally, we are recommending that the Secretary develop and provide training on child welfare disaster planning to all states.

HHS’s Administration for Children and Families provided written comments on a draft of this report; these comments appear in appendix IV. Regarding our recommendations that HHS ensure that the department’s guidance and training to states on child welfare disaster planning address the dispersion of children and families, ACF stated that it has taken action to update the guidance and provide training to states and will encourage

Conclusions

Matter for Congressional Consideration

Recommendations for Executive Action

Comments from the Administration for Children and Families and Our Evaluation


them to develop and submit disaster plans for review. ACF also requested that the report be modified to clarify that the focus of this report is on programmatic Disaster Recovery Plans (DRP) rather than on information technology DRPs. ACF stated that states have information technology-related DRPs for their automated systems and those plans address the need for preserving essential information recorded in the electronic case records. We clarified this point in the report.

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, relevant congressional committees, and other interested parties and will make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-7215. Key contributors may be found on the last page of the report.

Cornelia M. Ashby Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues


http://www.gao.gov/

Appendix I: Child Welfare Disaster Planning

Presentation

Appendix I: Child Welfare Disaster Planning Presentation

1

Child Welfare Disaster Planning

Briefing forRepresentative Jim McDermott, Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Human ResourcesHouse Committee on Ways and Means

June 2006



Presentation

Page 6 GAO-06-944

2

Introduction

• Two 2005 disasters—Hurricanes Katrina and Rita—resulted in a prolonged interruption of child welfare services and the dispersion of thousands of Louisiana’s child welfare children to 19 states.

• There has been growing interest in the extent to which states have developed strategies to cope with disasters that could result in the dispersal of children in the child welfare system.

Child Welfare


Presentation

Page 7 GAO-06-944

3

Objectives

Our objectives were to determine:

Q1: How many states have statewide child welfare disaster plans and what are the primary components of those plans?

Q2: To what extent do the states that experienced federally declared disasters in 2005 also have child welfare disaster plans?

Q3: How does the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) support states’ efforts to develop child welfare disaster plans?

Child Welfare


Presentation

Page 8 GAO-06-944

4

Scope and Methodology

To attain our objectives, we

• Surveyed state child welfare officials in 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Thirty-seven states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico responded to the questions on disaster planning.

• Interviewed child welfare officials in five states: California, New York, North Carolina, Texas, and Utah.

• Interviewed federal child welfare officials and reviewed agency documentation.

We conducted our work between October 2005 and June 2006 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Child Welfare


Presentation

Page 9 GAO-06-944

5

Summary of Results

We found that

• Twenty states and the District of Columbia reported that they had a written child welfare disaster plan. However, the plans varied in the extent to which they addressed selected child welfare program components, such as identifying children under state care who may be dispersed.

• Eight of the 29 states, plus Puerto Rico, that experienced a federally declared disaster in 2005 reported having a written child welfare disaster plan.

Child Welfare


Presentation

Page 10 GAO-06-944

6

Summary of Results

• HHS has assisted states in developing child welfare disaster plans by issuing guidance and funding technical assistance on disaster planning through its network of national resource centers. The guidance, however, generally does not address the potential dispersion of children and families in a disaster.

Child Welfare


Presentation

Page 11 GAO-06-944

7

Background

• Child welfare programs are intended to prevent child abuse and neglect and to protect and improve the lives of children who have experienced maltreatment.

• HHS’s Children’s Bureau of the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) establishes policy, oversees states’ child welfare programs, and provides technical assistance to states primarily through its national resource centers (NRC).

• State or local child welfare agencies administer the programs and monitor the children and their families.

Child Welfare


Presentation

Page 12 GAO-06-944

8

Background

• In order to receive federal child welfare funds, states must meet a set of program requirements that are described in their 5-year Child and Family Services Plans.

• There are no federal requirements for states to develop plans that address the needs of children during disasters. However, according to HHS, states have developed information technology-related DRPs that address the need for preserving essential information recorded in electronic case records.

Child Welfare


Presentation

Page 13 GAO-06-944

9

Background

• In 2005, 29 states and Puerto Rico experienced federally declared disasters.

• Severe storms and flooding were the most commonly experienced types of disaster.

• A disaster can affect states that do not directly experience the disaster when they receive children evacuated from states experiencing the disaster.

Child Welfare


Presentation

Page 14 GAO-06-944

10

Research Question 1

How many states have statewide child welfare disaster plans and what are the primary components of those plans?

Child Welfare


Presentation

Page 15 GAO-06-944

11

Q1: Status of State Disaster Plans

In a GAO survey of state child welfare officials in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico:

• Twenty states and the District of Columbia responded that they had a written child welfare disaster plan.

• Seventeen states and Puerto Rico responded that they did not have a written child welfare disaster plan.

• Eleven states did not respond to the disaster planning questions in the GAO child welfare survey.

• Two states did not respond to the survey.

Child Welfare


Presentation

Page 16 GAO-06-944

12

Q1: Status of State Disaster Plans

States reporting having a disaster plan (21)

Puerto Rico

D.C.

States reporting not having a disaster plan (18), not responding to disaster planning questions on survey (11), or not responding to the GAO survey (2).

RI

Note: In this slide the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico are considered states.

Source: Analysis of GAO national survey of state child welfare systems challenges.

Child Welfare


Presentation

Page 17 GAO-06-944

13

Q1: States Reporting Not Having a Plan or Not Responding

VermontMaryland

West VirginiaMichigan

Puerto RicoIndiana

OhioHawaii

New MexicoFlorida

New HampshireDelaware

MissouriCalifornia

MississippiArizona

MinnesotaAlaska

States reporting not having a plan

New Jersey

WyomingMaine

South DakotaLouisianaPennsylvaniaKentucky

OklahomaConnecticutNew YorkColorado

States not responding to disaster planning questions

NebraskaMassachusetts

States not responding to survey

Child Welfare


Presentation

Page 18 GAO-06-944

14

Q1: Selected Child Welfare Program Components

GAO surveyed state child welfare officials in 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico on whether their state’s child welfare disaster plan addressed each of the following selected program components:

• identifying children under state care who may be dispersed,

• identifying caseworkers who may be dispersed,

• continuing services for children under state care who may be dispersed,

• coordinating services and sharing information with intrastate agencies,

Child Welfare


Presentation

Page 19 GAO-06-944

15

Q1: Selected Child Welfare Program Components, con’t.

• coordinating services and sharing information with other states,

• placing children from other states,

• providing in-home family services to children from other states,

• identifying new child welfare cases and providing appropriate services, and

• preserving essential case information, electronic and documentary.

Child Welfare


Presentation

Page 20 GAO-06-944

16

Q1: Selected Child Welfare Disaster Plan Elements, con’t.

The 21 existing child welfare disaster plans varied in the extent to which they addressed selected child welfare program elements.

For example, 3 states—Illinois, Montana, and Washington—addressed all of the selected child welfare program elements.

Child Welfare


Presentation

Page 21 GAO-06-944

17

Q1: Program Components Addressed by State Disaster Plans

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Preserv

ing in

formati

on

Coordi

natin

g in-s

tate s

ervice

s

Contin

uing s

ervice

s

Identi

fying

child

ren

Identi

fying

case

workers

Identi

fying

new ca

ses

Coordi

natin

g with

othe

r stat

es

Placing

child

ren fro

m othe

r stat

es

Providi

ng in

-home s

ervice

s

Number of plans


Child Welfare


Presentation

Page 22 GAO-06-944

18

Research Question 2

To what extent do the states that experienced federally declared disasters in 2005 also have child welfare disaster plans?

Child Welfare


Presentation

Page 23 GAO-06-944

19

Q2: Comparison of States With Disasters And Existing Disaster Plans

Of the 29 states and Puerto Rico that experienced a federally declared disaster in 2005:

• Eight states reported having written child welfare disaster plans.

• Ten states and Puerto Rico reported that they did not have a written child welfare disaster plan.

• Nine states did not respond to the disaster planning questions contained in the GAO survey.

• Two states did not respond to the GAO survey.

Child Welfare


Presentation

Page 24 GAO-06-944

20

Child Welfare


Presentation

Page 25 GAO-06-944

21

Research Question 3

How does the Department of Health and Human Services support states’ efforts to develop child welfare disaster plans?

Child Welfare


Presentation

Page 26 GAO-06-944

22

Q3: HHS Efforts To Assist States In Developing Disaster Plans

HHS has assisted states in developing child welfare disaster plans by:

• providing disaster planning guidance to states in 1995;

• disseminating disaster planning guidance though the National Resource Centers for Family-Centered Practice and Permanency Planning, and on Legal and Judicial Issues Web sites; and

• providing $2.8 million to eight National Resource Centers to help states with disaster planning.

Child Welfare


Presentation

Page 27 GAO-06-944

23

Q3: HHS Disaster Planning Guidance Is Limited

Federal disaster planning guidance generally does not address:

• identifying children who may be dispersed,

• preserving child welfare records,

• coordinating services and sharing information with other states,

• placing children from other states, and

• identifying new child welfare cases and providing services.

Child Welfare


Presentation

Page 28 GAO-06-944

24

Q3: Additional Federal Assistance On Disaster Planning Would Be Helpful

Child welfare officials reported that additional disaster planning assistance from the federal government would be helpful, including:

• information on disaster planning requirements or criteria,

• training on how to develop a disaster plan,

• examples of good disaster plans, and

• forums for exchanging disaster planning information with other states.

Child Welfare


Presentation

Page 29 GAO-06-944

25

HHS’s Child Welfare Disaster Planning Initiatives

HHS initiatives to improve state child welfare disaster planninginclude:

• planning a child welfare disaster planning conference for states in August 2006,

• updating its 1995 disaster planning guidance for release at the conference, and

• asking states to voluntarily submit copies of their disaster plans for review by December 2006.

Child Welfare


Presentation

Page 30 GAO-06-944

26

Conclusions

• In the absence of federal requirements that states develop disaster plans, many states have not done so.

• Without disaster plans, these states may be unprepared to provide continuity of services for children and families who have been dispersed to or from other counties in the state or across state lines.

Child Welfare


Presentation

Page 31 GAO-06-944

27

Conclusions

• States that have developed disaster plans do not always address the dispersal of child welfare children and families, and the lack of dispersal plans may result in confusion at a time when families are under strain and need services most.

• Without minimum requirements on what states should include in their child welfare disaster plans, some states may be unable to ensure continuity of services within or across state lines for the children under their care.

• For example, of Louisiana’s 5,000 foster children, close to 2,000 were displaced by Hurricane Katrina. During that time, child welfare officials did not have current emergency contact information, which made it hard for them to find the foster families that had to evacuate.

Child Welfare


Presentation

Page 32 GAO-06-944

28

Matter for Congressional Consideration

To ensure continuity of services within or across state lines for the children under state care, Congress should consider requiring that states develop and submit child welfare disaster plans for HHS review.

Child Welfare


Presentation

Page 33 GAO-06-944

29

Recommendations

To better assist states in developing child welfare disaster plans, we recommend that the Secretary of Health and Human Services:

• ensure that the department’s disaster planning guidance address the dispersion of children and families within and across state lines, including steps for:

• identifying children who may be dispersed,• preserving child welfare records,• coordinating services and sharing information with other states,• placing children from other states, and• identifying new child welfare cases and providing services.

• develop and provide training to states on child welfare disasterplanning.

Child Welfare

Appendix II: Components of State Disaster

Plans

Appendix II: Components of State Disaster Plans

State Plan Components

State

Identify children who

may be dispersed

Identify caseworkers who may be dispersed

Continue services

to children who may

be dispersed

Preserve essential

case information

Coordinate services within state

Coordinate services outside

state

Place children

from other states

Provide in-home family

services

Identify new child

welfare cases

Alabama

Arkansas X

District of Columbia

X X X X

Georgia X X X X X X X

Iowa X X X X X

Idaho X X X X X X

Illinois X X X X X X X X X

Kansas X X X

Montana X X X X X X X X X

Nevada X X X

North Carolina X X X X X X X

North Dakota X X X X X

Oregon X X X X X X

Rhode Island X X X

South Carolina X X X X

Tennessee

Texas X X X X X X X X

Utah X X X X X

Virginia X X X X X X X X X

Washington X X X X X X X X X

Wisconsin X



Appendix III: States Experiencing Disasters

in 2005

Table 1: States Reporting Having Disaster Plans

State Type of disaster Month

Alabama Hurricane Dennis

Hurricane Katrina

July

August

Idaho Heavy rains, flooding July

Kansas Severe winter storms, heavy rains, flooding

Severe storms, flooding


February

August

November

Nevada Heavy rains, flooding March

North Carolina Hurricane Ophelia October

North Dakota Severe storms, flooding, ground saturation

Severe winter storms and record/near-record snow

July

November

Texas Hurricane Rita September

Utah Severe storms, flooding

Flood, landslide

February

August

Source: GAO analysis of Federal Emergency Management Agency 2005 federally declared disaster data at http://www.fema.gov/news/disasters.fema?year=2005

Table 2: States Not Reporting Having Disaster Plans


Alaska Severe winter storm

Severe fall storm, tidal surges, flooding

March

December

Arizona Severe storms, flooding


February

April

California Severe storms, flooding, debris flows, mudslides

Severe storms, flooding, landslides, mud and debris flows

February

April

Connecticut Severe storms, flooding December

Florida Hurricane Dennis

Hurricane Katrina

Hurricane Wilma

July

August

October

Hawaii Severe storms, flash flooding February

Indiana Severe winter storms, flooding

Tornado, severe storms

January

November

Kentucky Severe winter storm, record snow

Severe storms, tornadoes

February

December

Appendix III: States Experiencing Disasters in 2005


http://www.fema.gov/news/disasters.fema?year=2005

Appendix III: States Experiencing Disasters

in 2005


Louisiana Tropical storm Cindy

Hurricane Katrina

Hurricane Rita

August

August

September

Maine Severe storms, flooding, snow jams, ice melts June

Massachusetts Severe storms, flooding November

Mississippi Hurricane Dennis

Hurricane Katrina

July

August

New Hampshire Severe storms, flooding October

Nebraska Severe storms, flooding June

New Jersey Severe storms, flooding April

New York Severe storms, flooding April

Ohio Severe winter storms, flooding, mudslides February

Pennsylvania Severe storms, flooding April

Puerto Rico Severe storms, flooding, landslides, mudslides November

South Dakota Severe storm

Severe winter storm

July

December

West Virginia Severe storms, flooding, landslides February

Wyoming Tornado August

Source: GAO analysis of Federal Emergency Management Agency 2005 federally declared disaster data at http://www.fema.gov/news/disasters.fema?year=2005.


http://www.fema.gov/news/disasters.fema?year=2005

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department

of Health and Human Services

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services


Appendix V:

A

GAO Contact and Staff

cknowledgments

Page 40 GAO-06-944

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

Cornelia M. Ashby, (202)512-7215, [email protected]

Cindy Ayers (Assistant Director) and Arthur T. Merriam Jr. (Analyst-in-Charge) managed all aspects of the assignment. Wayne Sylvia, Mark E. Ward, Christopher T. Langford, and Kathleen Boggs made significant contributions to this report, in all aspects of the work. In addition, Carolyn Boyce provided technical support, James Rebbe provided legal support, and Charles Willson assisted in the message and report development.

GAO Contact

Staff Acknowledgments

Child Welfare

Appendix VI: Related GAO Products

Appendix VI: Related GAO Products

Lessons Learned for Protecting and Educating Children after the Gulf

Coast Hurricanes, GAO-06-680R, Washington, D.C.: May 11, 2006.

Hurricanes Katrina: GAO’s Preliminary Observations Regarding

Preparedness, Response, and Recovery, GAO-06-442T, Washington, D.C.: March 8, 2006.

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita: Provisions of Charitable Assistance, GAO-06-297T, Washington, D.C.: December 13, 2005.

September 11: More Effective Collaboration Could Enhance Charitable

Organizations’ Contributions in Disasters, GAO-03-259, Washington, D.C.: December 19, 2002.

Disaster Management: Improving the Nation’s Response to Catastrophic

Disasters, RCED-93-186, Washington, D.C.: July 23, 1993.

(130589) Page 41 GAO-06-944 Child Welfare

http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-680R

http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-442T



http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-259

http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?RCED-93-186

GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.”

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to:

U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington, D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202) 512-6061

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: [email protected] Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4400 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 Washington, D.C. 20548

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4800 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C. 20548

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs

Congressional Relations

Public Affairs

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

http://www.gao.gov/

http://www.gao.gov/

http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

mailto:[email protected]

